That wasn't my elbow....Clinton Huxley wrote:Times are hard. I hear Indonesia has bought your left elbow.Coito ergo sum wrote:That's impossible. I'm a national treasure.Clinton Huxley wrote:They'll be privatising CES next......

That wasn't my elbow....Clinton Huxley wrote:Times are hard. I hear Indonesia has bought your left elbow.Coito ergo sum wrote:That's impossible. I'm a national treasure.Clinton Huxley wrote:They'll be privatising CES next......
What's it like over in the states at the moment Tero? Get yourself prepped up before things leave normal.Tero wrote:House offers another ...same...bill. Bonehead does not realize Obama will not sign a bill with Onamacare in it?
Not a nation to go quiet into the night judging from their movies.Tero wrote:I should get a stun gun?
Senate and Obama offer...nothing at all.Tero wrote:House offers another ...same...bill. Bonehead does not realize Obama will not sign a bill with Onamacare in it?
The cool thing about the US is that if he want's one, and he can afford one, and he can find (or build) one, he can have one and nobody can tell him he can't.rEvolutionist wrote:You need a motherfucking tank, Tero!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/po ... .html?_r=0I know I'm howling into nothingness here, but venting is venting.
We're never going to have a stable federal government as long as one party refuses to understand our monetary system and the federal gov't role in it.
Our federal gov't is not a business, not a household, not a subordinate government. The federal gov't should and it must create and destroy money in order to put our national economy's productive capactities to work. If capacity is idle, it must create money by printing cash or bonds (and spending that cash or bond proceeds) or cutting taxes. If capacity is reached, to prevent inflation it must destroy money by paying off bonds, burning cash, or raising taxes.
This is basic macroeconomics 101, and should be required of anyone holding federal office.
Republicans and their base seem to live in a budgetary land appropriate to households, businesses, and subordinate governments. For such, 'what we can afford' is related to tax revenue. But for the federal gov't, 'what we can afford' is related to our idle capacity, not our ability to collect tax revenue.
The reason the US federal debt pays the lowest interest rate in the world is because the US federal gov't has the ability to print money to repay the debt, and that money can be used to buy goods and services in the US. If we were constrained by tax revenues, borrowers would demand more interest.
But I fear the Republicans refuse this most basic understanding of reality, and we're doomed.
What's bad about it?Scrumple wrote:This is not looking good.
I don't know exactly but figure you'll find out before me. You should never cross the beams, don't ever cross the beams.Warren Dew wrote:What's bad about it?Scrumple wrote:This is not looking good.
...until somebody starts shooting at you...rEvolutionist wrote:That's certainly cool. But not particularly sane.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 23 guests